Could US win a war vs Russia? (Britain, 50s, nazism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1812, Napoleon captured Moscow. He spent nights at Kremlin and Moscow was burnt down. Can you imagine Obama doing that? Obama and his Army Living in Kremlin and burning Moscow???
Even in the partisan fantasy-world where Presidents not named 'Obama' would happily try to conquer Moscow ... ... and then weirdly spend a triumphant night in the Kremlin ... ... (and, seriously, what sort of mind-altering substance produces such lurid fantasies?), in such a scenario Russia would have long since pushed the button, and we'd have done the same in retaliation, and there would likely be no American President left to lodge in the Kremlin, and there certainly would be no Kremlin left in which to lodge.
This thread is obviously sparked by the current situation in the Ukraine, which holds the potential (however long and far-fetched) possibility of a military clash over Crimea and perhaps other parts of Ukraine. It most certainly holds absolutely no potential whatsoever for an attempted military conquest of Russia by the United States.
For those saying we couldn't win against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, so we couldn't beat Russia, that is some deeply flawed logic. In Iraq, we defeated the world's 4th largest army soundly with minimal casualties and captured Sadam Hussein in a matter of a few weeks. The actual war was a massive success. Where we "lost" was when we became occupiers. When we began fighting an ideology rather than a military. Spending trillions of dollars occupying a country that doesn't want to be westernized is a losing strategy. Then minute we pull out, if that ever happens, the country will be overrun with extremists once again. We should have just toppled Saddam and gotten the hell out. That was the only way to win.
In Vietnam, we defeated the North Vietnamese armies pretty soundly and decimated them after the Tet Offensive. We lost because we were afraid to expand the war into North Vietnam, so we allowed the Ho Chi Min Trail to be sustained. We were also fighting an invisible enemy who hid amongst the local population.
The Russians would not hide and would be in plain sight. I also object to this idea that a potential U.S. vs. Russia matchup would involve the U.S. invading Russia. Why is this assumed? Why wouldn't the war be fought in Europe? Putin is the aggressor here, so I would imagine the bulk of the war starting in Eastern Europe.
Are you sure about 4th largest Army??? USA, Russia, China, India, North Korea comes to my mind. Iraq 4th in the world-no way.
I find all the people who are saying that American men and soldiers are weak, rather offensive. I dare you to say that to a US soldier's face.
It is the popular thing to say. It isn't true, but it is popular for people to bash the U.S. soldier as being weak and not wanting to see blood. We heard this before WW1 and WW2 also. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but the French didn't think too highly of U.S. troops when we entered WW1. The French wanted U.S. troops to be used as reserves only.
Just about every war has proven that U.S. troops perform extremely well. Yet we continue to hear this garbage.
Russia is given too much credit for WW2, while people ignore that they practically rolled over in WW1, and performed poorly in just about every other war they fought in. How do we know that today's Russian soldiers would fight to the death like their grandparents or great grandparents' generation?
It is the popular thing to say. It isn't true, but it is popular for people to bash the U.S. soldier as being weak and not wanting to see blood. We heard this before WW1 and WW2 also. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but the French didn't think too highly of U.S. troops when we entered WW1. The French wanted U.S. troops to be used as reserves only.
Just about every war has proven that U.S. troops perform extremely well. Yet we continue to hear this garbage.
Russia is given too much credit for WW2, while people ignore that they practically rolled over in WW1, and performed poorly in just about every other war they fought in. How do we know that today's Russian soldiers would fight to the death like their grandparents or great grandparents' generation?
They were Soviet soldiers, not only Russian soldiers. USSR was a Communist country that time. this pic is of Berlin where Soviet soldiers reached first.
It is the popular thing to say. It isn't true, but it is popular for people to bash the U.S. soldier as being weak and not wanting to see blood. We heard this before WW1 and WW2 also. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but the French didn't think too highly of U.S. troops when we entered WW1. The French wanted U.S. troops to be used as reserves only.
Just about every war has proven that U.S. troops perform extremely well. Yet we continue to hear this garbage.
Russia is given too much credit for WW2, while people ignore that they practically rolled over in WW1, and performed poorly in just about every other war they fought in. How do we know that today's Russian soldiers would fight to the death like their grandparents or great grandparents' generation?
We know it because Putin and his policies have created a new nationalism and love for the "Motherland" among the majority of the Russian people. I think we are witnessing the rise of a new Russia that will exert it's place in the world by whatever means it takes. I think that your statement that Russia gets too much credit for WW2 is exactly backwards. They don't get near enough credit. We would NEVER have defeated the Nazis if they had not made the fatal error of invading the USSR. Just imagine for a moment if the USA was invaded, most the developed portions of the country reduced to rubble and 20 million Americans killed. Now, where the Russians get the least credit is how quickly and completely they were able to recover from this "total war". They went from that stage to world superpower in a couple of years. They rebuilt their industry, their agriculture, their cities and towns and their national life in short order.
Now consider the American civil war. It was a brutal war that killed a couple of million and caused widespread devastation in the nation. To this day 150 YEARS after the end of the civil war there are still many regions and areas in the USA that have NEVER recovered to their prewar level. You Americans and us Canadians also to a large degree have a very smug and faulty concept of why we have prospered. We have thousands of miles of water on all sides of us that has been our main protection. We have no idea of what it is like living next door to a determined, capable and strong enemy. If there is anyone who takes far too much credit for allied successes in WW2 you sure should know the answer to that one. The tide of the war had already turned before the USA even got involved at all.
Define winning. If we won, it would be at the cost of millions of innocent lives on both sides by way of nuclear war. Environmental damage from fallout would probably kill millions more down the road.
We know it because Putin and his policies have created a new nationalism and love for the "Motherland" among the majority of the Russian people. I think we are witnessing the rise of a new Russia that will exert it's place in the world by whatever means it takes. I think that your statement that Russia gets too much credit for WW2 is exactly backwards. They don't get near enough credit. We would NEVER have defeated the Nazis if they had not made the fatal error of invading the USSR. Just imagine for a moment if the USA was invaded, most the developed portions of the country reduced to rubble and 20 million Americans killed. Now, where the Russians get the least credit is how quickly and completely they were able to recover from this "total war". They went from that stage to world superpower in a couple of years. They rebuilt their industry, their agriculture, their cities and towns and their national life in short order.
Now consider the American civil war. It was a brutal war that killed a couple of million and caused widespread devastation in the nation. To this day 150 YEARS after the end of the civil war there are still many regions and areas in the USA that have NEVER recovered to their prewar level. You Americans and us Canadians also to a large degree have a very smug and faulty concept of why we have prospered. We have thousands of miles of water on all sides of us that has been our main protection. We have no idea of what it is like living next door to a determined, capable and strong enemy. If there is anyone who takes far too much credit for allied successes in WW2 you sure should know the answer to that one. The tide of the war had already turned before the USA even got involved at all.
I agree with what you said about Russia in the second world war. They do deserve a lot of credit for what they did, at least the people of Russia deserve credit. Stalin was an animal, and Russia prevailed against the Germans in spite of him. Without Russia it would have taken USA, UK, Canada and Australia 10 years longer to beat the Nazis. They deserve credit where credit is due, in spite of their current belligerent attitude toward their neighbors in Ukraine.
Define winning. If we won, it would be at the cost of millions of innocent lives on both sides by way of nuclear war. Environmental damage from fallout would probably kill millions more down the road.
There would be no "winning" a war with Russia. Between nuclear weapons and who knows what other WMDs, we'd be lucky if it didn't ruin the whole planet.
We know it because Putin and his policies have created a new nationalism and love for the "Motherland" among the majority of the Russian people. I think we are witnessing the rise of a new Russia that will exert it's place in the world by whatever means it takes. I think that your statement that Russia gets too much credit for WW2 is exactly backwards. They don't get near enough credit. We would NEVER have defeated the Nazis if they had not made the fatal error of invading the USSR. Just imagine for a moment if the USA was invaded, most the developed portions of the country reduced to rubble and 20 million Americans killed. Now, where the Russians get the least credit is how quickly and completely they were able to recover from this "total war". They went from that stage to world superpower in a couple of years. They rebuilt their industry, their agriculture, their cities and towns and their national life in short order.
Now consider the American civil war. It was a brutal war that killed a couple of million and caused widespread devastation in the nation. To this day 150 YEARS after the end of the civil war there are still many regions and areas in the USA that have NEVER recovered to their prewar level. You Americans and us Canadians also to a large degree have a very smug and faulty concept of why we have prospered. We have thousands of miles of water on all sides of us that has been our main protection. We have no idea of what it is like living next door to a determined, capable and strong enemy. If there is anyone who takes far too much credit for allied successes in WW2 you sure should know the answer to that one. The tide of the war had already turned before the USA even got involved at all.
If Russia were to start a nuclear exchange then Russia would vaporize America, and bring the pollution of radiation dust cloud and nuclear winter throughout the northern hemisphere Where the missiles which America sent would just be a senseless as it would be suicide for Russia........ It would be wise for America to just back off and indirectly acknowledge the strategic importance to the Crimea for Russia behind the eyes and doors of the world
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.